[mixin visuals]

i am just watching something on the discovery science channel about how our ancestors we ape-like creatures and it made me wonder if religious people actually watch and believe that this is something that actually could be a reality.

seriously. do religious people watch the discovery channels?

[Cubeoid]

they might

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
...it made me wonder if religious people actually watch and believe that this is something that actually could be a reality.

haven't you read any of the threads in here? to some of them it's all a hoax and conjecture, conceived by the evil scientists and humanists to displace their (self) righteous religious paradigm and world view.

discovery channel isn't showing anything that hasn't been known! for at least 50 years now.

'intelligent design' is the newest hoax they've come up with to force religion back into the sociopolitical discourse and policy making.

but i digress, there are other threads on this already...

[chalk_outline]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
i am just watching something on the discovery science channel about how our ancestors we ape-like creatures and it made me wonder if religious people actually watch and believe that this is something that actually could be a reality.

seriously. do religious people watch the discovery channels?

This would be a good FPP on http://www.metafilter.com/

Oh snap http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/37542

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by mixin visuals:
i am just watching something on the discovery science channel about how our ancestors we ape-like creatures and it made me wonder if religious people actually watch and believe that this is something that actually could be a reality.

*could* be a reality ?

[PurpleGiant]

So. Many. Over-Generalisations. In. One. Post.

[Amorya]

Originally posted by PurpleGiant:
So. Many. Over-Generalisations. In. One. Post.

Have a search of the forum here - there's some religious people who believe evolution is a load of lies, and some that don't.

To answer your question, I sometimes watch the discovery channel, but I get little time for TV-watching at uni (where the cable is!)

Amorya

[hayesk]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
haven't you read any of the threads in here? to (most) of them it's all a hoax and conjecture,

Most? Uh-huh.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Most? Uh-huh.

yeah...you're right. that was pretty presumptuous of me. i'll change it.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
yeah...you're right. that was pretty prosumptious of me. i'll change it.

yep, and it was presumptuous of you as well.


Most of the Christians on MacNN DO believe in evolution (at least to some degree), take your trolling BS elsewhere.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Most of the Christians on MacNN DO believe in evolution (at least to some degree), take your trolling BS elsewhere.

tstststs...now that's presumptuous of you!

oh, and stick your personal attacks where the sun don't shine, please. thx.

[MacNStein]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
tstststs...now that's presumptuous of you!

oh, and stick your personal attacks where the sun don't shine, please. thx.

Just witnessing your personal war with the religious folks, how you attack them every chance you get. You silly little man.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by MacNStein:

Most of the Christians on MacNN DO believe in evolution (at least to some degree)

I'm rather religious... I believe in evolution for the most part, but I also accept that there is more to this world then meets the eye.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Originally posted by PurpleGiant:
So. Many. Over-Generalisations. In. One. Post.

Name another mixin visuals thread where this was not the case.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Yes they just call it the Sci-Fi channel.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Yes they just call it the Sci-Fi channel.

No.

So much ignorance in this thread.

[TheBadgerHunter]

Oh boy, another anti-religious thread. Yay!


Discovery has a lot on it not about evolution and such so I don't see why anyone wouldn't watch it. Maybe some shy away because its fairly inaccurate at the best of times.

[MilkmanDan]

1) I'm drunk

2) I think yes they do. Eveyone needs a good laugh.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I'm rather religious... I believe in evolution for the most part, but I also accept that there is more to this world then meets the eye.

Are you implying that the Earth is a giant transformer?

[Superchicken]

I think most "religious" people who would watch Discovery would simply have their own beliefs that they thought out firmly in place and take what is said with a grain of salt. That said I do find it offensive when people treat me as if I am some how stupid because I do not agree with a theory that they do, despite the fact that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the argument, (though that's not terribly correct since the argument has many sides in truth.)

[BRussell]

45% of Americans don't believe in evolution. I don't know if that works out to "most religious people," but it's still a pretty damn big number.

[Zimphire]

How dare anyone question evolution!

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Superchicken:
That said I do find it offensive when people treat me as if I am some how stupid because I do not agree with a theory that they do

Really? You get denied human rights and beaten up for it also you poor thing?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Really? You get denied human rights and beaten up for it also you poor thing?

Have you?

[Zimphire]

BTW this thread is kinda redundant.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=234939

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Really? You get denied human rights and beaten up for it also you poor thing?

I had no idea evolutionists were denied human rights and beaten up.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
I had no idea evolutionists were denied human rights and beaten up.

The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes

Well his attempted dis certainly backfired now didn't it

[Captain Obvious]

Interesting question sort of like: Should gay people support genetic engineering?
Since homosexuality is just a genetic variance that does not serve to propagate the species or add the kind of diversity that would help the genetic evolution of mankind we can only assume it can and should be weeded out if genetic engineering ever was widely practiced.

[cpt kangarooski]

Captain Obvious--

Interesting question sort of like: Should gay people support genetic engineering?
Since homosexuality is just a genetic variance that does not serve to propagate the species or add the kind of diversity that would help the genetic evolution of mankind we can only assume it can and should be weeded out if genetic engineering ever was widely practiced.

Why? It's certainly not harmful, and if gengineering on that level and scope is possible, it's not as though the unskilled sort of reproduction would be all that important anyway.

It's like saying we ought to stamp out the plague of left-handedness or freckles. You fail to recognize that diversity can be a goal in itself: we all enjoy different kinds of food, different kinds of music, etc. Why should it be so strange that people might be attracted to different sorts of people?

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Well his attempted dis certainly backfired now didn't it

Really? Because Scopes wasn't denied any human rights and he wasn't beaten up. The children who were denied the teachings of evolution, although arguably not really a human right, weren't evolutionists.

Me 1 — You 0

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Captain Obvious--


Why? It's certainly not harmful, and if gengineering on that level and scope is possible, it's not as though the unskilled sort of reproduction would be all that important anyway.

It's like saying we ought to stamp out the plague of left-handedness or freckles. You fail to recognize that diversity can be a goal in itself: we all enjoy different kinds of food, different kinds of music, etc. Why should it be so strange that people might be attracted to different sorts of people?

Because evolution is aimed at production and efficiency. Since we have slowed the whole process down logically we could use genetic engineering to artificially do what would naturally happen.

[Captain Obvious]

cpt kangarooski

Why? It's certainly not harmful, and if gengineering on that level and scope is possible, it's not as though the unskilled sort of reproduction would be all that important anyway.

It's like saying we ought to stamp out the plague of left-handedness or freckles. You fail to recognize that diversity can be a goal in itself: we all enjoy different kinds of food, different kinds of music, etc. Why should it be so strange that people might be attracted to different sorts of people?

Wrong. It is not on the same kind of diversity nor on par with red hair. It is not a physical trait but rather a behavioral one that does not help the species advance or multiply. So the question is not why, but why not. I haven’t heard of any “gay gene” that can be passed on otherwise there would be some pattern to homosexuality so it must be a mutation or random variance. So if people go in and mess with genes anyway they may as well and knock that one out when it happens since it serves no purpose. Whether it is strange or not is irrelevant it is science advancing efficiency.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Since homosexuality is just a genetic variance that does not serve to propagate the species.

as a matter of fact, it does. homosexuality is part of the hominid evolution. it frees up family members from taking on the responsibility of having kids, so they can instead help other relatives care for their offspring. all in the plan.

[CreepingDeth]

Do you atheists never stop your Inquisition? We have these goddamn threads every week with similar titles. All it proves is that you can get away with bashing Christians for no reason. And as usual, goof ol Starwars Fanboy comes in here and tries to make a anti-religious pun, then a couple of you come in and defend him, etc. This thread is like watching an episode of Law & Order twice in a row.

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
tstststs...now that's presumptuous of you!

oh, and stick your personal attacks where the sun don't shine, please. thx.

It'd be nice if you'd follow your own damn advice.

Originally posted by Superchicken:
I think most "religious" people who would watch Discovery would simply have their own beliefs that they thought out firmly in place and take what is said with a grain of salt. That said I do find it offensive when people treat me as if I am some how stupid because I do not agree with a theory that they do, despite the fact that there are very intelligent people on both sides of the argument, (though that's not terribly correct since the argument has many sides in truth.)

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
It'd be nice if you'd follow your own damn advice.

err..where did i post any personal attacks here?

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
err..where did i post any personal attacks here?

Oh, would you like me to link posts from other threads? Because that'd be fine with me.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
as a matter of fact, it does. homosexuality is part of the hominid evolution. it frees up family members from taking on the responsibility of having kids, so they can instead help other relatives care for their offspring. all in the plan.

Which is a good theory but one that only applies if we all still lived in the same extended packs as the animals the anthropologists who came up this theory studied, which we do not any longer. So homosexuality would be great for gorillas but for humans it is now useless, unless of course there is some study that shows gays have a huge lock on the nanny and babysitter industry.
And since this thread is about evolution and we have evolved out of those social and behavioral patterns it can be reasonably assumed if homosexuality was weeded out we wouldn’t really lose anything as a species.
By the time genetic engineering is widely practiced and accepted most of the tribal societies left in the world will probably be far more integrated into modern society leaving no reason for that extra family member to be around to take care of the kids, although I have yet to hear of many gay people who take care of their siblings or their sibling’s children today.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
as a matter of fact, it does. homosexuality is part of the hominid evolution. it frees up family members from taking on the responsibility of having kids, so they can instead help other relatives care for their offspring. all in the plan.

This probably isn't the case. There are so many questions that need to be answered before this theory will seem at all plausable to me.

1) Why are these "helpers" attracted to members of the opposite sex? How would this homosexual attraction evolve? Why aren't they simply nonsexual? Even if homosexual helpers do somehow appear then why doesn't selection make them nonsexual (or at least less sexual than your average heterosexual)? Homosexual sex (like heterosexual sex) potentially leads to STDs and parasites, it is energy intensive and exposes the participants to predation. There is an opportunity cost as well. I see few, if any, fitness benefits.

2) Lots of species have "helpers". They are not homosexual and they usually eventually start a family of their own if the opportunity arises. Why didn't humans and animals with homosexual members evolve along this route?

3) Helpers, at best, share only 50% of their genes with their relatives. In order for this strategy to have an evolutionary benefit they would, for example, have to enable their parents to successfully raise more than twice as many children as they would be able to without their help. For brothers sisters and cousins this number would have to be even higher. If they are, indeed, helping their parents then what happens when one or both parents die? Being homosexual they have no ability to start a family of their own, so they have lost their most direct way of propagating their genes.

I admit I haven't ever examined this theory in detail, partially because is seems so implausible. If you have any insight into how this theory could work I'd be delighted to read it.

[ironknee]

if u ask your parent nicely, they might unlock the v chip for the discovery channel

edited for a general audience

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by ironknee:
hey zim, if u ask your parent nicely, they might unlock the v chip for the discovery channel

[Useless post]
-Thank you lil mr elitist.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Interesting question sort of like: Should gay people support genetic engineering?
Since homosexuality is just a genetic variance that does not serve to propagate the species or add the kind of diversity that would help the genetic evolution of mankind we can only assume it can and should be weeded out if genetic engineering ever was widely practiced.

Why should anyone care to mimic the progression of evolution? Are you confusing the concept of "does happen" with "should happen"? Also, if anyone wanted to make "better evolved" humans they would probably start by selectively breeding them, not altering their genes.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by ironknee:
hey zim, if u ask your parent nicely, they might unlock the v chip for the discovery channel

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
... although I have yet to hear of many gay people who take care of their siblings or their sibling’s children today.

i was just talking from an 'evolutionary' point of view.

otoh, if we followed your line of thought to the end, we would have to 'weed' out EVERYBODY who isn't capable of having children, n'est-ce pas?

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Homosexual sex (like heterosexual sex) potentially leads to STDs and parasites, it is energy intensive and exposes the participants to predation.

yes, but it is also tension relieving...and thus makes for a calmer and more 'sociable' member of a 'society' (just an idea..think of bonobos)

Originally posted by Scientist:
2) Lots of species have "helpers". They are not homosexual and they usually eventually start a family of their own if the opportunity arises. Why didn't humans and animals with homosexual members evolve along this route?

good question. i have no idea. maybe it just proved to be more beneficial that way. the whole 'homosexuality' issue isn't a black and white proposition anyway. there is a big grey area there.

Originally posted by Scientist:
3) Being homosexual they have no ability to start a family of their own, so they have lost their most direct way of propagating their genes.

i think you just might have answered your question number 2.
like i said, sexuality isn't a 'rigid' proposition, and there doesn't really seem to be any 'direct' pattern of inharitance.

Originally posted by Scientist:
If you have any insight into how this theory could work I'd be delighted to read it.

i had a fairly long lecture on this back in '93, and at the time it seemed really brilliant. i think i'll try to find more about it on the net somewhere.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
yes, but it is also tension relieving...and thus makes for a calmer and more 'sociable' member of a 'society' (just an idea..think of bonobos)

I thought of this. However, the tension that is relieved is sexual tension. Wouldn't a more direct route for evolution to act be to simply relieve the helpers of sexual urges and tension? This is actually pretty easily done. All it takes is altering the concentration of a few chemicals in the brain.

It is true that sex plays a social role in bonobos as well as humans. I think bonobo relationships are better thought of as "bisexual" rather than "homosexual". Bisexual social relationships make some sense to me and they do seem somewhat common throughout history in humans. However, I don't think any social benefit can override the fitness disadvantage of not being able to have children.

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
good question. i have no idea. maybe it just proved to be more beneficial that way. the whole 'homosexuality' issue isn't a black and white proposition anyway. there is a big grey area there.

i think you just might have answered your question number 2.
like i said, sexuality isn't a 'rigid' proposition, and there doesn't really seem to be any 'direct' pattern of inharitance.

If homosexuality was "meant" to be a temporary social phenomenon among helpers then why don't we see a large portion of the homosexual population "grow out" of their same sex lust or at least become bisexual? I know homosexuality isn't quite black and white but it seems to be black and white enough to lend little support to your idea.

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i had a fairly long lecture on this back in '93, and at the time it seemed really brilliant. i think i'll try to find more about it on the net somewhere.

I would really like to read a paper about this. I can think of at least one piece of evidence that would support this idea, however, as you know, I'm quite skeptical.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by Scientist:
Why should anyone care to mimic the progression of evolution? Are you confusing the concept of "does happen" with "should happen"? Also, if anyone wanted to make "better evolved" humans they would probably start by selectively breeding them, not altering their genes.

You think the Human genome project was done for fun? Genetic engineering is just a far less controversial way of phrasing the process of intervention in the evolution of man. In the name of progress and health gene manipulation will be done to prevent hereditary diseases, increase levels of antiviral proteins to decrease susceptibility, or remove anything parents deem as unwanted in their children. Should anyone is not really the question anymore either in one form or another it will happen. You won’t be able to make people selectively breed because no one will ever go for it but for those who choose to they will be able to help their kids avoid Parkinson's or a disposition towards obesity along with any number of things. Do you think there are many people who if given the option would choose to have a gay kid? I have heard of many people who love and accept their children who are gay but never have I seen one say they were hoping for it. Messing with genetics is all part of changing evolution since manipulating one person can have consequences in future generations.

Originally posted by roberto blanco:
i was just talking from an 'evolutionary' point of view.

otoh, if we followed your line of thought to the end, we would have to 'weed' out EVERYBODY who isn't capable of having children, n'est-ce pas?

The way you make it sound I am advocating the destruction of people, which I am not saying at all. I am talking about the elimination of unnecessary traits. The people would still be there just modified. And the question you posed in hopes of trying to insinuate I said something I did not is not such a departure from what happens now. We are certainly on the road to phasing out infertility in those who suffer from that quality and would like to have children. Fertility treatments are not so looked down upon or even ethically questionable anymore. I would think if infertility was mapped and could be eliminated it would only be surpassed in support by the termination of cancer. Do you think it would be so morally reprehensible for parents to choose to eliminate that trait in the womb rather than having to have their kids go through fertility treatments later in life? What we’re talking about is the removal or unnecessary or undesirable traits not the people themselves.

[Scientist]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
You think the Human genome project was done for fun? Genetic engineering is just a far less controversial way of phrasing the process of intervention in the evolution of man. In the name of progress and health gene manipulation will be done to prevent hereditary diseases, increase levels of antiviral proteins to decrease susceptibility, or remove anything parents deem as unwanted in their children. Should anyone is not really the question anymore either in one form or another it will happen. You won’t be able to make people selectively breed because no one will ever go for it but for those who choose to they will be able to help their kids avoid Parkinson's or a disposition towards obesity along with any number of things. Do you think there are many people who if given the option would choose to have a gay kid? I have heard of many people who love and accept their children who are gay but never have I seen one say they were hoping for it. Messing with genetics is all part of changing evolution since manipulating one person can have consequences in future generations.

I thought you wanted to help evolution along for some reason...perhaps to eliminate gay people. If this isn't your intent then nevermind.

[cpt kangarooski]

TheBadgerHunter--

Because evolution is aimed at production and efficiency. Since we have slowed the whole process down logically we could use genetic engineering to artificially do what would naturally happen.

Why? I mean, at some point in time, humanity will be extinct. Should we speed that up too?

Besides, evolution isn't aimed at anything. It's just a natural process. It has no more of a goal than the water cycle or plate tectonics. It just happens.

At any rate, why should we seek to continue with it? We can have goals and desires, think about them, plan out how to best accomplish them, etc. These may not coincide with what would happen otherwise, and there's no reason to think that things would be better off if we didn't.

If you want to stop using tools, language, etc. and run around naked in the savannahs of Africa, you be my guest.

CaptainObvious--

Wrong. It is not on the same kind of diversity nor on par with red hair. It is not a physical trait but rather a behavioral one that does not help the species advance or multiply. So the question is not why, but why not. I haven’t heard of any “gay gene” that can be passed on otherwise there would be some pattern to homosexuality so it must be a mutation or random variance. So if people go in and mess with genes anyway they may as well and knock that one out when it happens since it serves no purpose. Whether it is strange or not is irrelevant it is science advancing efficiency.

It is not a physical trait but rather a behavioral one that does not help the species advance or multiply.

First, how do you know? Second, so what? I for one am interested in many things other than 'advancing,' whatever that is, or multiplying.

it serves no purpose

Neither does left handedness. Or preferring vanilla to chocolate. Things don't always need a purpose. Why do you think they do? Is your life that regimented?

Genetic engineering is just a far less controversial way of phrasing the process of intervention in the evolution of man. In the name of progress and health gene manipulation will be done to prevent hereditary diseases, increase levels of antiviral proteins to decrease susceptibility, or remove anything parents deem as unwanted in their children.

And yet, those things have nothing to do with evolution. Arguably, they're ways of frustrating evolution, much like other medical advances. (e.g. people who can't conceive on their own wouldn't have kids and pass on their genes -- now we can help them along, but their genetic makeup is still the same)

Do you think there are many people who if given the option would choose to have a gay kid?

I think it's not that simple, and I think that most people wouldn't care.

The way you make it sound I am advocating the destruction of people, which I am not saying at all. I am talking about the elimination of unnecessary traits. The people would still be there just modified.

So you'd be happy to forcibly sterilize people. Or compel people to take drugs to alter their behavior to fit in with what you feel is proper for them. People who have religious beliefs that preclude medical care? Tough for them you say? Well, you're quite the fascist, huh.

I think it's better to by and large avoid prenatal genetic modification and instead work on techniques that could be used later in life, when people elect to do so upon themselves.

Personally, I'd deeply resent the idea of having been irrevocably modified to fit someone else's ideal.

[roberto blanco]

Originally posted by Scientist:
I thought of this. However, the tension that is relieved is sexual tension. Wouldn't a more direct route for evolution to act be to simply relieve the helpers of sexual urges and tension?

well, you are already pointing to the problem that this may cause in your other questions. a 'homosexual' though attracted to the same sex is still potentially 'capable' of producing offspring...

Originally posted by Scientist:
However, I don't think any social benefit can override the fitness disadvantage of not being able to have children.

again, here you can have it 'both ways'...

Originally posted by Scientist:
I can think of at least one piece of evidence that would support this idea, however, as you know, I'm quite skeptical.

i hope i can find more about this...